EDITORIAL: A better meeting of the minds between environmental and agricultural concerns is needed.

After Gov. Larry Hogan pulled implementation of Maryland’s phosphorus management tool — aka PMT — on the day he was inaugurated, many sighs of relief were heard within the agricultural community around the state. But frustration also surfaced in the environmental community.

And what, exactly, is different about that? For years Maryland has watched the battle between agriculture and the environment unfold. You might think we’d have resolved this issue and be on track to a healthier Chesapeake Bay, but we are not.

Hogan pulled the bill and halted implementation, at the same time promising that more reasonable regulations would be put into place, that he understands some form of state oversight is needed to curb the phosphorus flowing into the Chesapeake Bay and its waterways, many of which criss-cross the Eastern Shore’s agricultural and forest lands.

Hogan was as good as his word, proposing a new option that was not radically different from the one passed by former Gov. Martin O’Malley, except in one important way: Hogan’s proposal would govern phosphorus by way of regulation, while O’Malley’s would have become law.

That’s important because regulations are more flexible. They can be tweaked as necessary instead of requiring new legislation to correct any problems that arise. Such adjustments might favor the environmental side, or they could go the way farmers would like to see them go. But it would no longer be necessary to fight this battle year after year in Annapolis, and it would make the governance of phosphorus a more agile exercise for Maryland.

Hogan’s regulations would also make concessions to both sides: For farmers, most would get an extra year — until 2022 — to fully implement the phosphorus management tool. For environmentalists, 21 percent of Lower Shore farmers would be required to make immediate changes — those would include those whose land was determined to be producing the most phosphorus output. They would no longer be allowed to apply any phosphorus to their fields.

Delmarva Poultry Industry and the Maryland Farm Bureau support Hogan’s proposal, even if not joyously embracing it.

The Maryland Senate, meanwhile, was busy Friday with a hearing on Senate Bill 257, sponsored by Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, D-22-Prince George’s, basically would implement the rules that were halted by Hogan. It serves as a counter to Hogan’s proposal.

Pinksy’s bill, if enacted, would have to wait until the 2016 legislative session to be adjusted, should that become necessary. Hogan’s could be tweaked as needed at any time.

There is a good deal of talk among environmentalists about giving the state too much leeway to repeal the regulations altogether.

And likewise, there is discussion among farmers about wanting more time to better understand the impact of the regulations on their own livelihoods.

One thing is clear — regardless of which legislation (if any) passes, there remains much work to reconcile two important components of Lower Shore culture — agriculture and environmental concerns. Both sides remain convinced they are left out, that their views are absolutely 100 percent correct and those of the other side are absolutely 100 percent wrong.

Because both sides are so important, we will never see success until farmers and environmentalists come together at the negotiating table — or perhaps at a round table? — to both speak sincerely and listen with an open mind. Neither environmentalists nor farmers are evil demons. Both have a clear stake in whatever rules, regulations and laws get passed. And the rest of us have a huge stake in what results from those regulations and how they play out.

As it stands, Hogan’s regulatory proposal seems far preferable to passing more laws that require endlessly putting more legislation before our representatives in Annapolis. It is highly unlikely that a situation that took decades to create will be fixed by one set of laws virtually overnight.

This almost ensures that this legislative and rhetorical battle will continue to be fought for years to come — an exercise in futility if there ever was one, for us and for our beloved Shore and bay.

Better, then, to govern by regulations, at least for the foreseeable future. And when — if — we find we’ve finally gotten it right, that could then become law, sealing a more favorable future for our bay, waterways and agricultural pursuits.

In the meantime, a meeting of the minds between environmental and agricultural concerns, leading to a display of greater respect for one another’s perspectives and efforts to make things right, would result in a more productive dialogue and process.

DO YOU AGREE?

Do you believe success with limiting the levels of phosphorus and other nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries hinges on a better meeting of the minds between agricultural and environmental concerns? Share your thoughts in a letter to the editor, emailed to opinions@DelmarvaNow.com.